Is Your Biobank Up to Standards? A Review of the National Canadian Tissue Repository Network Required Operational Practice Standards and the Controlled Documents of a Certified Biobank.

Ongoing quality management is an essential part of biobank operations and the creation of high quality biospecimen resources. Adhering to the standards of a national biobanking network is a way to reduce variability between individual biobank processes, resulting in cross biobank compatibility and more consistent support for health researchers. The Canadian Tissue Repository Network (CTRNet) implemented a set of required operational practices (ROPs) in 2011 and these serve as the standards and basis for the CTRNet biobank certification program. A review of these 13 ROPs covering 314 directives was conducted after 5 years to identify areas for revision and update, leading to changes to 7/314 directives (2.3%). A review of all internal controlled documents (including policies, standard operating procedures and guides, and forms for actions and processes) used by the BC Cancer Agency's Tumor Tissue Repository (BCCA-TTR) to conform to these ROPs was then conducted. Changes were made to 20/106 (19%) of BCCA-TTR documents. We conclude that a substantial fraction of internal controlled documents require updates at regular intervals to accommodate changes in best practices. Reviewing documentation is an essential aspect of keeping up to date with best practices and ensuring the quality of biospecimens and data managed by biobanks.

Biospecimen User Fees: Global Feedback on a Calculator Tool.

The notion of attributing user fees to researchers for biospecimens provided by biobanks has been discussed frequently in the literature. However, the considerations around how to attribute the cost for these biospecimens and data have, until recently, not been well described. Common across most biobank disciplines are similar factors that influence user fees such as capital and operating costs, internal and external demand, and market competition. A biospecimen user fee calculator tool developed by CTRNet, a tumor biobank network, was published in 2014 and is accessible online at www.biobanking.org . The next year a survey was launched that tested the applicability of this user fee tool among a global health research biobank user base, including both cancer and noncancer biobanking. Participants were first asked to estimate user fee pricing for three hypothetical user scenarios based on their biobanking experience (estimated pricing) and then to calculate fees for the same scenarios using the calculator tool (calculated pricing). Results demonstrated variation in estimated pricing that was reduced by calculated pricing. These results are similar to those found in a similar previous study restricted to a group of Canadian tumor biobanks. We conclude that the use of a biospecimen user fee calculator contributes to reduced variation of user fees and for biobank groups (e.g., biobank networks), could become an important part of a harmonization strategy.

The importance of biobanking in cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Establishing the importance of biobanking in cancer research is important for research funders and for planning health research infrastructure. This study delineates the importance of biobanking to the cancer research landscape in Canada and relative to other forms of health research infrastructure. METHODS: The Cancer Research Society (CRS) is a Canadian organization with a broad mission and national portfolio that funds studies across the spectrum of cancer research. We selected all 35 investigators who received CRS grants in the 2010/11 competition and then analyzed their publications from 2010 to 2014. Articles were categorized by overall research area, acknowledged source of funding, specific scientific focus, and the presence of any data that involved an 'indicator' (human biospecimens, cell lines, animal models, advanced microscopy, flow cell sorters, and next generation sequencing) of dependence on different kinds of health research infrastructures. Publications involving biobanking and utilizing biospecimens were further classified by biospecimen provenance and type of biospecimen used. RESULTS: These investigators generated 502 (from a total of 749) papers that were related to the field of cancer research. Amongst 445 papers that contained primary data, we found no significant differences between CRS funded and 'other funded' papers in terms of biospecimen use, which occurred in 38% of articles. Overall biospecimens were mostly obtained directly from patients (17%), or indirectly from biorepositories (31%) and hospitals (46%). The proportions of studies using other tools was as follows: 54% cell lines, 32% animal models, 14% advanced microscopy, 14% flow sorters, and 8% next generation sequencing. The spectrum of research was very similar to the overall profile of cancer research in Canada in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that biorepositories that coordinate the activity of biobanking rank amongst the most important of established health research infrastructures as contributors to research publications.